Adams v. Hempstead County et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying 27 Motion for Jury Trial. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on February 25, 2016. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
STEVEN PAUL ADAMS
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:14-cv-04117

SHERIFF JAMES SINGLETON;
OFFICER MAX FIELD;
and OFFICER CODY AARON

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, Steven Paul Adams, filed this action pro se and in forma pauperis on September
12, 2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Jury Trial
in which he requests a jury trial and a settlement conference. ECF No. 27. Defendants responded
to Plaintiff's Motion for Jury Trial. ECF No. 30.
1.

Motion for Jury Trial

On February 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Jury Trial. ECF No. 27. Defendants
responded arguing that Plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial is time barred pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 38(d) as it was not properly served within ten days of Defendants’ Answer.
ECF. No. 30.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require Plaintiff to make a jury demand by “serving
the other parties with a written demand . . . no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to
the issue is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). Plaintiff waives a jury trial if his demand is not properly
served and filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d). In the Eighth Circuit, this rule is rigidly applied and a
complete waiver should be found when a jury demand has not been timely made, whether the
failure was “inadvertent, unintended and regardless of the explanation or excuse.” Scharnhorst v.

1

Independent School District No. 710, 686 F.2d 637, 641 (8th Cir.1982) (finding the pro se plaintiff
waived her right to a jury trial when she failed to demand a jury trial in her complaint), cert. denied,
462 U.S. 1109 (1983).
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint without a demand for a jury trial on September 12,
2014. (ECF No. 1). Defendants filed their Answer on February 11, 2015. (ECF No. 11).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Jury Trial was filed approximately one year after the last pleading directed
to the issue—Defendants’ Answer. Therefore, Plaintiff’s jury demand is untimely. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 38(b) (jury demand must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the last pleading directed to
the issue); see also e.g., King v. Patterson, 999 F.2d 351, 353 (8th Cir. 1993) (a jury trial demand
filed more than two months after filing a complaint and approximately seventy-eight (78) days
after defendants filed their answer was filed out of time pursuant to Rule 38).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Jury Trial (ECF No. 27) is hereby DENIED.
2. Motion for Settlement Conference.
Plaintiff also requested a settlement conference in his Motion for Jury Trial. ECF 27. This
matter is set for a bench trial on Thursday, April 14, 2016 in Texarkana, Arkansas. ECF No. 25.
Plaintiff may contact counsel for Defendants at any time prior to the trial to discuss possible
settlement.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Settlement Conference (ECF No. 27) is hereby
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of February 2016.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2